1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2071 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Alleged slander by Health minister. Mr. Lauk — 2071

Student summer employment situation. Mr. Wallace — 2071

Possible liaison between Colonel Sanders and B.C. Ferries. Mr. Gibson —

Swampers on transportation systems. Mr. Levi — 2072

Possible AIB review of rate increases. Mr. Barnes — 2072

Dispute between CUPE and Mid-Island Employers Association. Mr. Stupich —

Overcharging on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Lockstead — 2073

Statement

Vandalism in Hedley. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2074

Mr. Macdonald — 2074

Routine proceedings

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Second reading.

Mr.Cocke — 2074

Mr. Davidson — 2079

Mr. Barber — 2081

Mr. Lloyd — 2085

Mr. Lauk — 2087

Mr. Stupich — 2090

Mrs. Jordan — 2097

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2097

Auditor General Act (Bill 45) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 2100

Mr. Stupich — 2103

Mr. Gibson — 2104

Mr. Wallace — 2104

Mr. Lea — 2105

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): With us in the gallery this

afternoon are two people: Mr. Larry Hope, the owner-manager of Decker

Lake Forest Products of Burns Lake in the great constituency of

Omineca, and Mr. Bill Korth of North Vancouver. I would ask the House

to make them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today are over 40 members of the Comox Social Credit

constituency, and the president of that constituency, Mr. George Smith.

I would ask all members of the House to bid them a very hearty welcome.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): I'd like the

members of the Legislature to make welcome this afternoon a group of

students in the gallery from the D.W. Poppy Secondary School in Langley.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED SLANDER BY HEALTH MINISTER

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. members of the government benches have missed me, and I'm glad to be welcomed back.

I have a question for the hon. Minister of Health. Has the minister

yet received a writ issued under the Supreme Court of British Columbia

in the name of Wilmer J. Pettit, a civil servant in the Health

department, alleging damages for slander made and published by the

minister to members of the news media at Victoria, B.C., and

subsequently communicated by them to such persons as would identify Mr.

Pettit as being the subject of the minister's words? The minister's

words were alleged to have defamed Mr. Pettit in Mr. Pettit's office

and employment as director, hospital finance division, hospital

programmes for the Department of Health of the government of the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Pettit alleges that the slander took place on April 29,1976.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

POSSIBLE LIAISON BETWEEN

COLONEL SANDERS AND B.C. FERRIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question

for the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Last week, on one of the B.C. Ferry runs, certain coffee tops were

issued reading in part "Kentucky-fried chicken; poulet frit a la

Kentucky," of which I have sent the minister a copy, and I would like

him to indicate to the House whether this means that the B.C.

government is promoting Colonel Sanders.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Where did he go? He was there a minute ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister had to leave his seat for a moment, Hon. Member. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Oh! Perhaps I might yield the floor until he returns, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT SITUATION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Provincial Secretary, in view of the increasingly urgent situation

of student employment, if she has been able to get the figures which

she said she would try to obtain last Wednesday as to how many students

have been employed by the government and how many are awaiting

employment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the information for the hon. member at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, a supplementary.

In view of the figures released by the director-general of Canada

Manpower for the Pacific region that unemployment will soon exceed 10

per cent and the particular problem of the students in financing their

studies this fall, in view of that serious hardship, has the minister

initiated any discussions with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), in light of the fact that the demand for student loans this

fall will be greater than ever, in seeking to look ahead and try to

come up with programmes that at least might neutralize some of the

effects of the unemployment this summer?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon.

leader of the Conservative Party, first of all I would like to say that

all members of cabinet are addressing themselves...and the government

recognizes the dire situation that you reiterate that the federal

government has expressed. We appreciated that when we tried to get the

initial student

[ Page 2072 ]

programme off the ground, and the initial programme that the

government wished to get off the ground was not successful. However, we

do recognize the problem and we have said ourselves that it will

probably be the worst year for students. All members of the government

are working together to alleviate the situation. I am, in cooperation

with the Minister of Education, addressing myself to that, as are all

members of cabinet.

POSSIBLE LIAISON BETWEEN

COLONEL SANDERS AND B.C. FERRIES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the minister a supplementary, so to speak.

I'd like to ask him if the use of this Colonel Sanders coffee top on

the B.C. Ferries indicates that the government is promoting Kentucky

Fried Chicken, or purchasing recycled cups, or is this an indication

that they will be getting the food franchise on the ferry system?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Colonel Sanders bought the fleet. (Laughter.)

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, no, no, to the three questions.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Then would the minister launch a small inquiry to understand how these coffee-cup tops came to be used?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

SWAMPERS ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I

asked the Minister of Human Resources a question about the tragic

occurrence of the 81-year-old blind man who was killed in the elevator

shaft. I said to him that it was my feeling that because of the

reduction in the grant to the New Westminster transportation system,

staff were laid off, and had that not been the case, there would have

been a swamper and the accident would not have happened.

Yesterday, we got a very quick report from the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) on the situation regarding the elevator. The

minister indicated that he would look into it. He didn't say — and I

read the Blues — that he would report back, but is he prepared to

report back on what he has found out in respect to the grant made to

the New Westminster transportation system, and is he prepared to admit

that because of the staff cutback this tragic accident occurred?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Part of the question was in

order: the reference to a report that you indicated you would give to

the Legislature, Hon. Minister.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. member, I will be getting more detailed

information, but if it's of some assistance to him now, the information

I've received thus far is that there were no swampers on the vehicles

previously. This sort of confuses the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: The minister said there were no swampers on there.

That's a mistake; there were swampers. I would suggest you look at last

night's Sun and see the statement, made by the person who directs that

programme. There certainly were swampers there. You cut a programme

back from $180,000 to $117,000. That's why there were no swampers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your question?

Interjections.

POSSIBLE AIB REVIEW

OF VARIOUS RATE INCREASES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): A question to the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

This refers to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) who yesterday, in his remarks speaking on Bill 16, the

Anti-Inflation Measures Act....

MR. GIBSON: I didn't speak yesterday.

MR. BARNES: Did I say Capilano? I meant Burnaby.

But he stated that this government is committed to do everything

possible to help in the national attack on inflation. He went on to

state with confidence that he believed the raising of the ICBC rates

was based on strict break-even actuarial principles and that we,

meaning the government, I suppose, welcomed a review by the

Anti-Inflation Board.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he

[ Page 2073 ]

would advise the House today whether or not the statement by that

member subjects ICBC, B.C. Ferries, social service increases, medicare,

medical insurance, hospital rates and a host of other increases, all of

which exceed federal Anti-Inflation Board guidelines, to Anti-Inflation

Board ratification after Bill 16 is passed?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, through

you to the member: these are all matters which are under discussion by

officials with the Ottawa officials, regarding the potentiality of an

agreement which we hope to sign with them.

MR. BARNES: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: the member indicated

that the government would be pleased and would welcome any subjection

of any of the increases that it has made to the Anti-Inflation Board. I

wonder if this is in fact or if the member was speaking only for

himself and not for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think anyone who takes their place in debate on the floor speaks for themselves.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: the question is

completely in order. Is a statement of a government backbencher in

accord with the policy of the government? That is a question that is

always in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That was not the question that was posed to the minister at all.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, with respect, that is a matter

of policy of the government. I am not aware of the statement having

been made by the member, but I would indicate that it is a matter of

policy of the government.

DISPUTE BETWEEN CUPE AND

MID-ISLAND EMPLOYERS ASSOC.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Labour: I wonder if he has anything at all he could report on the

matter of the continuing dispute between the Mid-Island Employers

Association and CUPE, which certainly has interfered very seriously

with education in the Nanaimo school district and has done away

completely with bus transportation. I understand their negotiations

have been on and off, and I wonder if the minister has an up-to-date

report.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the

most recent report I have had from the mediation officer directly

involved in the dispute, Mr. Clark Gilmour, is that he is pursuing with

the parties avenues which

he considers appropriate, but there has not yet been any indication

from the employers that they are prepared to utilize any of the

additional assistance that may be available under the Labour Code.

Until that takes place, the appointment of a third party into the

dispute remains very much in doubt. The success of a third-party

intervention and through an industrial inquiry commission, to a large

measure, depends upon the willingness of the parties to cooperate fully

with such a commissioner in the hopes of arriving at a settlement. My

office is in daily receipt of reports from the mediation officers and,

in addition, we have had the Department of Education monitoring the

situation in the Nanaimo schools.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is considering

or has considered the possibility of asking both parties whether or not they

would accept binding arbitration, whether they would voluntarily accept binding

arbitration.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I met with the parties and

discussed the possibility of the appointment of an industrial inquiry

commission. I always do; I asked them to consider whether it should be

binding. That concept is not acceptable to the union. I might say that

in my proposal to the parties with respect to a commission, I proposed

there be a five-person commission: a chairman, who is professional and

skilled in the matter, and four citizens, two to be chosen by the union

and two to be chosen by the management, and which would, in effect,

function as a jury in such a case, because, after all, it is the

citizens who are largely bearing the brunt of any increase there may be

as a result of any negotiation. That was turned down by the employers.

MR. STUPICH: A further supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the minister did say that the mediator is following

procedures that he believes are appropriate under the circumstances. I

wonder if the minister could tell us anything about that — or would he

rather not at this stage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The task of the mediation officer is a

very sensitive one, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result, I would prefer not

to have it discussed. But I would be happy to meet with the member to

assure him of the steps that are being taken. I don't think it would

promote a settlement to have it discussed publicly.

OVERCHARGING ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the hon. Minister of Transport: I would like to know if the minister made a statement to elected

[ Page 2074 ]

representatives of my riding last Friday morning in which he talked

about new cash registers for B.C. Ferries vessels, in which he alleged

that B.C. Ferries personnel have been overcharging the customers and

pocketing the extra money. If so, I would like to know what evidence

you have, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I made no statement to that effect, either at that meeting or at any other time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister was quoted in the March 25 edition of the Sunshine Coast News as having made that statement, and I would request that he look at that issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think that you should refer to the rules of questions when you quote from newspaper articles.

VANDALISM IN HEDLEY

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hon. members may have read in this morning's

Province an

article bearing the headline: "Punks Terrorize Hedley Old

Folks." It was written by Mr. Tony Eberts, a highly respected Province

staff reporter. Having received that

article in the morning paper, Mr.

Speaker, I requested that the matter be brought to the attention of

authorities in this department. That has been done, and I have also had

the benefit of discussions with the hon. member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), who is as disturbed and as concerned

as I am with the report. I can certainly assure the members of the

House that we don't have any intention of seeing citizens harassed, as

the

article indicated. The attendant facts will be checked and we are

treating the matter as one of serious and considerable concern.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I

appreciate the concern, but I would suggest to the Attorney-General

that he consider sending the Police Commission in, through himself, its

officers, or such volunteers as it may wish to enrol. I'm sure there'd

be no trouble getting them, because it's basically a civilian body, and

with this kind of a problem that kind of an investigation could be made

in terms of restoring health, in a justice sense, in that particular

community.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): On a point of

privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) referred to a statement that I made in a speech yesterday

in the House. If he reads back a little further in Hansard he will find

that I was quoting from a statement that the Premier made two weeks ago

in the House.

Orders of the day .

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to second reading of Bill 16, by leave.

Leave granted.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 has

been before the House for quite a considerable time now. We're

surprised to see it coming and going as it is. However, we're delighted

to have an opportunity to say something on the question of the

attachment of the provincial government with the federal government AIB

— the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting scenario that has been set up by this

government is one, I think, we should all pay attention to just for a

second. We see a government now talking in terms of restraint; we see a

government now saying that one must tighten the belt and get involved

in the federal anti-inflation programme, and, Mr. Speaker, being very,

very beautiful in the act.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government would like us to forget some

of their attitudes toward restraint in recent months. They'd like us to

forget that they increased sales tax 40 per cent. They'd like us to

forget the monstrous increases in ferry rates. Mr. Speaker, they'd like

us to forget the increases in ICBC, and all of the other increases, Mr.

Speaker, that they justified by casting their eyes over their shoulders

and talking about the last government. But, Mr. Speaker, what have we

seen during the last number of months? We've seen a group of people, a

coalition called government, who have made it their direction to see to

it that every action they took was an action that they could justify by

virtue of talking in terms of the past government.

Mr. Speaker, let's just think a minute. What have they really done?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Cleaned up the mess.

MR. COCKE: Cleaned up the mess, the member for Columbia River

says. Mr. Speaker, if that were the case, I'm here to tell you there's

a bigger mess now.

[ Page 2075 ]

This businesslike government has increased the budget, not decreased it, has increased the budget substantially.

Mr. Speaker, not only have they increased the budget, they have made

monstrous cuts in services. So that would indicate to me that you can't

have it both ways. Either you're going to do a businesslike job of

reducing expenditures, which you haven't done — that would be

compatible with the reduction of services, which you have done — or, on

the other hand, you could show how good you are at business and

continue the services at their past rate and show no budgetary increase

— if, in fact, the past government was a spendthrift government, which

you have proven beyond a shadow of doubt was not true. So that's

precisely the kind of attitude that went into the workings of this

present coalition.

Let's take a look at this bill. Let's take a look at who's exempt.

Let's first think in terms of Ottawa and their attitude towards the

anti-inflation bill. of their own.

I have before me a news

article that I think most people would be

somewhat interested in. This, Mr. Speaker, is just a little snip that

says: "Look Who's Exempt."

"Are government departments and agencies and, more

important, the fees of various services they charge exempt from the

anti-inflation guidelines? The answer, befitting a programme that has

more than its share of subtle distinctions, is maybe."

In January the cabinet — and I'm talking about the federal cabinet —

decided to exempt all of its departments and most of its agencies from

the jurisdiction of the Anti-Inflation Board. An order-in-council was

quietly passed and later printed in The Canada Gazette. The only

agencies remaining under the vote's jurisdiction federally are 17 Crown

corporations.

But, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, we even exempt our Crown

corporations. ICBC is obviously exempt because they did all of their

increasing prior to the government taking action under Bill 16. Their

rate increases — and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) seems

to be quizzical about this whole question — Mr. Minister of Labour,

through you, Mr. Speaker, were somewhat more than 8.5 or 10.5 or any

other increase that would be considered to be anything within the realm

of reality. So in B.C. we can be sure that the exemption applies to our

Crown corporations as well as government departments.

Obviously government departments are exempt. We saw an increase in

medicare of 50 per cent. We saw an increase in hospital per diems of

400 per cent. So restraint is a one-way street with the coalition.

Restraint is something that they understand for others but not for

themselves.

Federally we notice that the government is trying now a sort of

deathbed repentance. When they announced their budget this week, they

discussed the question that they're going to harden up on prices and

they're going to harden up on profits.

We replied, when we were government and the AIB first came in, to

Ottawa that it was a one-way piece of legislation that was sure to

control wages, but the possibility of its controlling either prices or

profits has been relatively remote. And we asked the then people that

we were dealing with to harden up in that particular area. But we have

seen in B.C. particularly in the last two or three months a greater

inflation than in all the rest of Canada, an inflation rate that has

mostly been created by our own government.

Ottawa replied, I think probably best, when the director himself was

in Vancouver not too long ago. When he was asked by the press at a

press conference, "How's the AIB doing?", he said: "It's doing well

with wages but we're praying about prices." Not good enough, and that's

why we're so very, very much opposed to the direction that this

government has taken, particularly a direction that they've taken after

seeing to it that all of their increases have been implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to the member for

Skeena (Mr. Shelford), who has been a mighty fighter over the years. He

missed three years in the House and we kind of missed him. That member

for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) has always been a great fighter for

containing oil prices in the north, bringing them down to parity with

the south part of the province and getting a fair deal for the north.

Mr. Speaker, that fighter hasn't said very much about our Premier

agreeing with Ottawa on a 25 per cent increase in the price of oil in

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, again, it's outside the AIB. It's too much,

particularly for those people in more remote areas who are going to

have to pay the price in spades.

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation also where during the last part of

last year the then government changed the terms of reference and made

an announcement with respect to rent control. We said that rent control

should be changed so that the increase should not be more than 8 per

cent. It didn't take the new coalition long to change that back and

make rent control 10.5 per cent. When any of us that are thinking in

terms of restraint, the horrendous thing that's happening under this

area of rent control is that the automatic increase that takes place is

an increase of 10.5 or 10.6 per cent, or whatever it happens to be.

Whether justified or unjustified, that's the increase.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone into just how much this will mean in the

next few years if it isn't scaled down. So let the government show

where its affections are. Let the government indicate to us that

they're prepared to really restrain the areas that are

[ Page 2076 ]

important to the broad cross-section of people in our province. Let

the government show that they're interested in the worker who's been

restrained from having access to reasonable rental accommodation. Let

the government show that they're really concerned about that worker

who's been restrained from having access to food that isn't escalating

at an unreasonable price. Moreover, let the government show that

they're really concerned about that worker or that pensioner,

particularly people on fixed incomes. Let them show that they're really

concerned enough to scale down some of their already very large

increases.

Mr. Speaker, I contend that the AIB and that our association with

the AIB, under the present circumstances, give corporations a great

deal more protection — almost all the protection they require — over

those people who we are really interested in, those people who cannot

defend themselves in this particular rarefied atmosphere. That's

particularly the working poor, particularly those people on fixed

incomes, particularly those people who are grossly affected by price

increases and profit increases.

Let's just take a little look at history, Mr. Speaker, and see who's

been looked after in our country. Rough justice, Mr. Speaker, is the

kind of justice that we see before us. We see in 1965 the average

percentage of profits in corporations of 8.2 per cent. We saw in 1966,

6.3 per cent; in 1967, 1.6 per cent; in 1968, 13.5 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, in 1969 we saw an increase of 7.1 per cent and in 1970 we saw

a minus of 7.2 per cent. So they had to do some making up in 1971, and

there was a profit picture of 12.8 per cent. But look where it went. In

1972 it was a 23.3 per cent average profit margin across this country;

in 1973 it was 34.4 per cent of an increase; and in 1974 it was 27.2

per cent.

Mr. Speaker, when we see those kinds of figures and we see the

priorities in the AIB, all we can say is that the corporations, who

really don't need the kind of protection they've received over the

years in this country, are being once again protected, particularly

because of the fact that they gain when their workers are restrained.

That's their big gain, Mr. Speaker. So it's just part of the old

syndrome: pay lip service to restraint, pay lip service to the whole

question of dampening inflation and maybe we'll come out heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we should be looking at inflation

across the world. Canada, of course, has its problems. In 1974 we had

an inflation rate of 10.9 per cent and in 1975 we had an inflation rate

of 10.6 per cent. The United States in 1974 had 11 per cent inflation

and in 1975 they reduced theirs to 9 per cent. The rest of the western

world, Mr. Speaker: Japan was 22.7 per cent and they went down to 14.4

per cent in 1975; Belgium was 12.6 per cent and 12.5 per cent

successively; Denmark was 15.3 per cent and 11.9 per cent; France was

13.6 per cent and 12.1 per cent; Italy was 19.1 per cent and 19.7 per

cent; the U.K. was 15.9 per cent and 25 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there

has been a real travesty, because we agree that the greatest robber of

people's ability to purchase from their income is inflation.

I find, just by the way of looking at other nations in the world,

Mr. Speaker, that the only other Social Credit area that I can find in

the world — and that's Chile — had an inflation rate of 585.9 per cent

in 1974 and 371.8 per cent in 1975. I would suggest that what has

occurred in Chile hasn't been the most directly beneficial to the

people there, the highest inflation rate in the world that I have

access to.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a great deal more concern for those

most directly affected, a great deal more concern. I have before me

indications of price increases. We've seen where inflation is hurting

the consumer the worst. In B.C. we know that many of the government

services have been hard to endure. We see such things as the high

flyers of inflation, potatoes up 87.7 per cent in March of 1976. From

five years ago they're up 154.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, there are all

sorts of areas indicating that there is a very, very hard inflation.

One of the things that I'd like to suggest that I'm very pleased about

is that milk is only up 6.2 per cent and up only 73.5 per cent over the

last five years. That's a lot, but surely it's one of the most

important foods that we have available.

We have it across the board, Mr. Speaker, with rare exceptions. This

is where people are hurting — that and also the areas of government

services. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) quoted an age-old

adage that inflation is the cruellest tax of all, and I agree with the

member for North Okanagan. How do we justify those kinds of statements

from those members when at the same time they increase rates that they

have access to? I think that the Anti-Inflation Board must at times

wonder who their friends are.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, the provinces and the

municipalities currently seem to be doing more to add to the consumer

price index in the months ahead than to subtract from it. Increases in

alcohol and tobacco charges, property taxes, administered energy costs

could easily push the index well above its recent moderate pace.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quoting Ann Bower.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Ann Landers?

MR. COCKE: Ann Bower writes very well in an eastern paper, but it's just as important here, and that's in The Financial Post .

Mr. Speaker, the real high-flyers are government expenditures. I

don't really think one has to do very much proving to be sure that one

is right in that

[ Page 2077 ]

particular area.

Mr. Speaker, what are some of the alternatives? What can we do? We

certainly know that we can take another look at rents. We know

perfectly well that either a subsidized rental housing situation should

be embarked upon for low-income families or there should be some very

hard-line rules around rental increases. Mr. Speaker, there must be

effective rent controls.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, there he is. The minister says "Oh." That's

right. The minister says "all across the world." Yet he's endorsing

Bill 16. Now you're being totally inconsistent, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker. Either you're for it or you're against it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We heard the minister say "Oh!" So it would appear

to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General in this province will not

support Bill 16.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. COCKE: If he supports it, then he's going against his own conscience.

AN HON. MEMBER: His conscience?

MR. COCKE: His conscience. Well, most people have a conscience, Mr. Member. Be fair.

Mr. Speaker, of course there's a division over there. We know what

their attitude is towards rent control because they voted against it.

And they've agonized, I presume, in order to go along with it at this

point — but go along with it at too high a rate.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Adequate housing! Mr. Speaker, the only way you're

going to have adequate housing is to develop the kind of initiatives

that are necessary but which nobody seems to be able to deal with at

the present time. So there is no question in my mind; rent controls

must stay. Even this government is subscribing to rent controls through

Bill 16. But it is on the record now that the Attorney-General does not

favour rent controls. Therefore how could he possibly favour Bill 16 in

any way, shape or form?

Mr. Speaker, another question that we should be looking at, and the

question that affects every young person in this country, is

speculation, speculation that's been going on in Canada for the last I

don't know how many years, speculation that was started by the CPR in

grabbing all the land they could get in

Canada. It's a tradition that's been carried on by major financial

institutions and developers across the land. And there are too few of

them; there aren't that many. Oh, there are a number of small ones, but

the major land around each of the cities in Canada is locked in by

speculation and by speculators.

Mr. Speaker, somehow or other that is going to have to be broken

down. Young people cannot afford to pay $30,000 for a lot and then go

on paying $30,000 to have construction on that lot. These are acts

that somehow or other have to be modified, have to be gotten out of the

purview and out of the control of the people who are hanging on for

dear life.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, but you forget it was you who brought in the land freeze.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member for North

Okanagan to the most recent Weekend Magazine in the rotogravure

section

of The Vancouver Sun . There was an excellent

article telling

all about the major cities in Canada. The only major city in Canada

that didn't have that problem was Montreal, where they have an entirely

different attitude, similar to Prince George, Madam Member. There you

can buy a lot for $2,300, — here you can buy a lot for $30,000. Mr.

Speaker, it's only because of the land-grabbing people who are strong

enough and powerful enough to hold that land off the market and let it

dribble on in such a way as to keep prices sky-high.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): She couldn't make her second million dollars because of the Land Commission Act. The Okanagan land-grabber!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Vancouver Centre has finished with his speech, I will continue. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, other areas where I think we can make some inroads are

some real regulations around gas prices. Gas prices have seriously

fuelled our inflation rates, seriously fuelled that rate. Yet, that is

the hallowed area. They are the people who can go to the AIB for their

wholesale increases. They are the people around whom Premiers and Prime

Ministers make a decision for increases that, as far as the average

person is concerned, are exorbitant.

Somehow someone must get a handle on it. How can we be confident of

the bill that has no power in these particularly inflationary areas?

How can I stand here and endorse a bill that ties us in with Ottawa on

an anti-inflation programme after we have raised everything that we can

possibly raise in this province with respect to payment for government

services — as recently as the ferry increase which is in the process

[ Page 2078 ]

now, and beginning on June 1?

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things we can do, but more than

that, in order to somehow support our economy, governments have to turn

their minds to full employment, something that I don't really think

we've been doing, not only in our province but also in our country. We

not only have an inflation rate that is shameful, an inflation rate

that is destructive for senior citizens, but we have an unemployment

rate that's totally unsatisfactory and growing worse in B.C. and faster

in B.C. than anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk in terms of addressing ourselves to

full-employment policies, what are we as a province doing? We're laying

off people as quickly as we can. Get rid of some of those ferry

workers. Get rid of those other workers working for government.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Oh, no. You've got it all wrong.

MR. LAUK: Mein Kempf!

MR. KEMPF: You're all wrong.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we are not looking at full employment

in this province. We are going back to the old way of keeping wages

down — keeping people out of work in order to assist an economy, in

order to assist our friends in the corporations to pick up cheap labour.

No, Mr. Speaker, we have to address ourselves to these areas, and if

this government were, then I think they'd have a lot more credibility.

They'd have a lot more credibility with our party. They'd have a lot

more credibility with people in organized labour. They'd have a lot

more credibility with all the young people in our province who are

being denied access to the work force. I would just love to know how

many young people, right now, are going to be denied post-secondary

education as a result of the tremendous cutbacks we've seen in summer

employment from that coalition government.

We're going to see a number of people who want to carry their own

burden but who don't have rich parents to put them through, to pay

their room and board. It's even worse up in your country, in the north,

where they have so far to go and comparatively so much more to pay.

We, as legislators, should be working toward the end that these

people have an opportunity. They're being denied an opportunity now.

They're being denied an opportunity because that government is callous,

Mr. Speaker. That government doesn't care about a programme that was

helping people help themselves. How proud they could be, those young

people, when they said: "I did it myself. I went and worked each summer

and then went back to school and I finally got my degree." But now what

chance have they got?

Mr. Speaker, everything they're doing is antipathetic to the need.

It's not in keeping with their protests about restraint. It's not in

keeping with their protests that they're supporting the federal

government, let alone supporting real restraint in our province except

in that one area, and that area is wages, and particularly the area of

public servants — particularly in that area.

Mr. Speaker, just compare, if you will, Bill 22 and Bill 16. Bill 22

is on the order paper now, introduced by the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams). I'm not going to discuss Bill 22 other than to say

this: in comparison with Bill 16, Bill 22, in its essence, supersedes

every other Act on the statutes. Did you realize that, Mr.

Member-lawyer? Bill 22 supersedes every other Act on our statute books,

but check out Bill 16.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Bill 16 is so full of "may".... No "shalls."

There's only one "shall" in it, and that's mitigated by a "may" that

supersedes it.

MR. LAUK: It's a "shall" game.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It is a "shall" game, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 says implicitly: "This bill is modified by any

other Act of the Legislature." Bill 16 is modified. Bill 22 supersedes

every other Act in our province.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that shows you where our values are.

I've heard some rather marvellous arguments in this House — and I'd

like to end on this note — some marvellous arguments about what causes

inflation. The members of the coalition think they really have a handle

on it, but I suggest to you that they're using old-fashioned economics.

I'd like to refer you to something that....

Interjection.

M R. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member's embarrassed, but we'll

help him. We'll help him, because I'm sure we can get somebody to read

this whole thing to him if he's interested.

Mr. Speaker, this is a brochure that was put out by the Conference

Board in Canada. It's called "Deficit Financing and Inflation Facts and

Fictions," and it's written by Robert B. Crozier, senior economist to

the

[ Page 2079 ]

Conference Board in Canada. For those who don't know, the Conference

Board in Canada is probably the most sophisticated and probably one of

the most prestigious boards in this country. It certainly has the

respect of people who really know something about advanced economics.

Mr. Speaker, what do they say early on in this treatise?

"Where, then, is the evidence to support the view that

government deficit financing has produced the recent high rates of

inflation in Canada?"

Remember, we were talking about that around other bills that we've had before the House, Mr. Speaker.

"Such a view must surely be based either on misreading

of the economic statistics continued in the national accounts or on

sources of information which are basically at variance with what the

national accounts show, for, as table 1 indicates" — and there's a

table in here, for those who are interested — "Canada, as a nation, has

been running comfortable surpluses in the government-sector position on

a national income accounts basis for all of the past decade except the

year 1975, when recession eroded the tax base and led to a sharp rise

in unemployment payments. In 1973 and 1974, as the rate of inflation

rose, these surpluses showed major increases."

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say:

"Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests to the

contrary that rising rates of taxation" — and we've seen some of that

here recently — "and the increased government revenue flows which have

been associated with these surpluses (and which have underwritten

escalating expenditure programmes of a wasteful and non-productive

nature) have contributed greatly to the emergence of cost-push factors

in the economy. Upward pressures on wages and salaries have reflected,

to some degree, an attempt to maintain after-tax incomes in the face of

rapid increases in direct personal taxes."

Mr. Speaker, that's precisely what I started off saying: as a

government we have played right into the hands of inflation. As a

government that coalition made decisions outside the AIB — decisions

that will cost us dearly and will reflect on the inflationary aspect of

our economy for some time to come. Not only has it a continuing effect

of its own, but all of the side effects that go along with it. Mr.

Speaker, damage has been done. Erosion has occurred in the available

income for the people in our province that only strong measures and not

Mickey-Mouse, AIB, tongue-in-cheek measures, Mr. Speaker, can do

anything about.

There's no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker. I have no alternative

but to turn thumbs down on the government's position on the AIB,

Anti-Inflation Board, Bill 16 — call it what you like, Mr. Speaker,

it's a washout. It's a washout because it proves once and for all that

this government has their own tongue in their own cheek, because they

haven't gone along with it themselves. Everything they've done has been

contrary to what they say they want to do. There's been no restraint in

ICBC there's been no restraint in taxation, there's been no restraint

in the taxing of services to people. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you

very clearly that there's no way that we can support this piece of

Mickey-Mouse legislation.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in

favour of Bill 16, a bill which, among other things, deals with

bringing the public sector of this province under the same

anti-inflation guidelines as now exist in the private sector.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) says there was nothing to indicate that we've done anything

to attack inflation. I would suggest that he has failed to examine the

budget that was brought down this year, which was only a 5.4 per cent

increase, as opposed to a 58 per cent increase brought down by his

government the previous year.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that after this House had the

opportunity two weeks ago to hear the Minister of Labour so clearly

outline the reasons for this legislation, the necessity for this

legislation, and the benefits to all British Columbians of this

legislation, that there need be any further debate at all. Instead of

the opposition realizing their responsibility and joining with the

government in charting a path towards the control of spiralling

inflation in this province, they have taken a crab-like approach and

moved sideways in their debate. Not only have they failed to discharge

their responsibility as opposition members in supporting this

legislation, but they have done everything possible to cloud the issue

with misinformation and misrepresentation of the intent of this

legislation.

Press coverage of the Labour minister's address two weeks ago was,

to say the least, underwhelming. Through lack of interest, lack of

understanding or lack of media responsibility the people of British

Columbia were deprived of an opportunity to fully understand and

comprehend Bill 16. As usual, too, Mr. Speaker, a smokescreen defence

was taken by the NDP, and through successive improper points of order,

the impact of the minister's remarks was effectively lessened by a ploy

which even the most simple-minded cub reporter could clearly identify.

Clearly distinguishable also were the totally unrelated remarks

dealing solely with federal jurisdiction, designed purely to detract

from one of the finest presentations of any bill heard in this House.

[ Page 2080 ]

1 find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand how the NDP, which

purports to be a party of the working man, a party of the poor, the

deprived, those dependent upon social assistance, those on fixed

incomes, can oppose a bill so clearly aimed at protecting those very

same individuals. During three years of their administration the only

thing they managed to accomplish in the fight against inflation was an

illegal price freeze, a price freeze not even passed in this

Legislature and which they knew was illegal.

The second thing they tried to do was strike a deal with the federal

government to place our natural resource industries and our natural

resources under the control of the federal government. Nothing could

have been more disastrous to this province. I do not believe, however,

that the members of the opposition, even today, understand the real

necessity of this legislation...

AN HON. MEMBER: Author!

MR. DAVIDSON: ...or they would give their support, even

reluctantly, to save face with the Canadian Labour Congress or the B.C.

Federation of Labour, who are so irresponsibly opposed to the

anti-inflation measures in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author!

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, as pointed out on many occasions

in this House, Bill 16 deals only with the public sector and has been

designed to complement federal legislation which does deal with the

private sector. We in this House can no more ignore our

responsibilities in dealing with the public sector than if the federal

government had dealt only partially with the private sector, exempting

half of those who currently fall under the Anti-Inflation Board

regulations. The constant referrals by the opposition members that this

government represents the millionaire club, the elite of society, the

management viewpoint, is nothing short of utter nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DAVIDSON: The very fact that this government is

introducing legislation to come to grips with a problem facing every

single person in British Columbia is evidence itself of our concern,

our responsibility and our determination to honour the commitments that

we made to all the people of this province during our election campaign.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Did you tell them you'd raise taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well read.

MR. DAVIDSON: The fact that the opposition does not support

this legislation is more than proof that they are dominated by and

subservient to the bosses of big labour, and behind all the socialist

rhetoric of concern for the little person they apparently could care

less.

The anti-inflation measures introduced by the federal government may

be far from perfect, but they represent the first step in facing a

problem which, unattended, would spell social and economic disaster for

every person in this dominion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once more with feeling.

MR. DAVIDSON: Nor is it fair to portray the trade union rank

and file as irresponsible in their attempts to cooperate in bringing

inflation under control. As referred to by the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams), the example set by the smelter workers of Alcan can

serve as a model not only for labour but also for industry and

management. Disregarding instructions of their bargaining unit to

negotiate outside the wage guidelines, those union members rejected

that plea, faced their responsibility, vetoed that instruction and

negotiated within the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's when there was a government union....

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of example and

that is the kind of determination that will turn around this province

and this country and lead us all back to the road of productivity and

prosperity. That is also the kind of collective thinking that has

resulted in a 92 per cent success rate in the anti-inflation guidelines

negotiated by over three-quarters of a million employees of this

nation. Surely, with this kind of information, with this kind of

success rate, the opposition must reconsider its stand and voice its

support, be it even reluctant support, of Bill 16. There can be no

question that if we are to cool the fires of inflation, then both the

public and private sector must fall under the same guidelines. If we

have two families living side by side, one individual subject to

guidelines and the other not, can there be any hope of the programme

working? Hardly, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a rhetorical question?

MR. DAVIDSON: If we have, however, two families living side

by side, each subject to the same guidelines, each aware of his

responsibility in the overall fight and each aware of the determination

by all sectors joined to work together, then the

[ Page 2081 ]

opportunity is great not only for success between those families but

success on each and every front. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this

bill provides: equality between the public and the private sector and

an end to irresponsible wage demands totally out of all proportion of

ability to pay.

No one is saying that it's going to be easy and no one is saying

that it's going to be done without some sacrifices. But clearly, Mr.

Speaker, it is easier than the alternative, an alternative that, to

date, the opposition has failed to see, an alternative that can only

spell disaster for the economy and the future of the province. It is

simply not fair for anyone to infer that the worker in British Columbia

has been subjected to hardships in the last few years. Since 1972,

average weekly earnings in British Columbia have increased 38 per cent,

and average weekly earnings in British Columbia have always exceeded

the increase in the consumer price index. I hope that this picture will

continue, as it should.

Bill 16, as the opposition knows, must pass and will pass, but, Mr.

Speaker, wouldn't it be encouraging if, on this very crucial and

important matter, this House could stand united in its determination to

control the inflationary trend which has so disrupted so many lives?

Mr. Speaker, I close in asking members of this House to give their

unanimous support to Bill 16 and by so doing to honour their commitment

of responsibility to the electorate of British Columbia, and to serve

the electorate's interests to the very best of our collective

abilities. Thank you.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for your permission

to break procedure for just a moment. It's not too often that we get

students travelling from Prince Rupert down to see the Legislature in

operation, because of the difficulty of travel. I would like to ask the

House this afternoon to join me in welcoming to the gallery and to the

Legislature a group of students from the secondary school in Prince

Rupert, and I would ask you to all be on your best behaviour.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are the Socreds applauding?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And you, too, Jim.

A coalition government has a lot of problems: they have a problem getting their

act together; they have a problem deciding what their principles are; they have

a problem deciding what their priorities are and how they shall follow their

principles. I have said before, and I would like to repeat again, that we have

a coalition government dominated by a cabinet of 15 persons. Among those 15,

five of them used to be enemies of the other 10. This is a big problem for a

coalition government, Mr. Speaker. This fundamental problem is reflected in

their fundamental inability to set an economic policy that makes sense. It is

reflected in their inability to persuade anyone, including some of their own

backbenchers, of the worth of Bill 16.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: This coalition government has no thought-out,

rigorously examined, consistent economic policy. The problem they've

had persuading anyone of the merits of Bill 16 has been that their

actions contradict their words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: Their actions contradict their words, and have

done so from the day they took office. A coalition government has a

terrible responsibility to its own members, not to act on principle or

philosophy but merely to get re-elected. So they try, on the one hand,

wearing their Mickey Mouse hats, to tell the people of the province

that the Anti-Inflation Measures Act is going to solve the inflation

problems in this particular jurisdiction. On the other hand they are

doubling, tripling and quadrupling every rate in sight,

It is a very difficult act they have, Mr. Speaker. I think we

should, perhaps, for a moment stand silently in respect for the

difficulties this coalition is going through at the moment.

In the fight against inflation every government in the world has

more than a political and more than an economic responsibility; it also

has that peculiar responsibility of leadership called moral leadership.

This government has failed utterly to set a moral example and that's

why the bill is failing, too.

A government that comes in with increases of 100, 200, 300 and 400 per

cent is setting an example, a very bad example. That's why it has been

impossible for this coalition to persuade anyone of the merits of Bill

16. This bill and that coalition are hopeless and inconsistent and

absurd.

It is hopeless because their cause has failed already and no one

believes them. It is hopeless because the chairman of the

Anti-Inflation Board himself prays to God, hoping that they might find

some way to control prices. They know they have found a way to control

wages; he doesn't have a clue how to control prices. The chairman of

the Anti-Inflation Board gets down on his knees to pray to God because

no other remedy is at hand. This coalition is doing the same thing.

It's hopeless because it has failed already; the inconsistencies and the internal contradictions are so

[ Page 2082 ]

great that it is simply not working. The bill is inconsistent

because of the failure of this coalition to get its act together. On

the one hand they preach restraint; on the other they quadruple ICBC

rates.

MR. CHABOT: Is that what Galbraith says?

MR. BARBER: We'll get to what Galbraith says in a moment. I

had the opportunity to spend several hours with that gentleman, and I

am going to be telling you something about what he says. He has grave

reservations about AIB. By the way, when he came here as my guest that

night in the gallery and watched this Legislature debating Bill 16, he

said in one simple sentence, describing this Legislature: "A disgrace

to the Mother of Parliaments." That's how impressed he is with the way

the coalition runs the affairs of this House. But we'll get back to Mr.

Galbraith later.

For the moment I want to point out again that this hopeless,

inconsistent and absurd bill is bound to fail. It will pass this House,

but it will fail the test of public approval. It will fail the test of

success.

It is inconsistent because on the one hand we have a coalition that

preaches restraint, and on the other hand increases acute-care and

extended-care premiums by 400 per cent. Hopeless inconsistency, Mr.

Speaker. Finally, this bill is absurd because, again, we see the

complete inability of a coalition to get together and say the same

things.

I have, personally, considerable respect for the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch). We've had a long talk; he's a

charming gentleman. Yesterday he said that he believed that it would be

appropriate and fair — I trust I am quoting you properly; if I am not,

please correct me — for ICBC itself, and the Autoplan increases, to be

the subject of AIB jurisdiction. I congratulate that honest and candid

member for Burnaby-Willingdon. That is our position, too.

The fact that he says that is more than enough evidence that this

coalition can't decide what its economic policy is. An honest, fair

member, presently in the back bench, hopefully sometime in the cabinet

— we'd like those qualities in the cabinet — tells us what we tell this

Legislature, which is that if the government is to make an earnest and

sincere case about inflation, that case has got to start in their own

backyard.

I, Mr. Speaker, would be quite charmed to see introduced as an

amendment to Bill 16 a proposal that a Treasury Board monitoring agency

be established, because the worst inflator of them all, since December

22, has been that Treasury Board itself. More than charity begins at

home, Mr. Speaker; a good example begins at home too. If this bill were

amended to include supervision of the Treasury Board, and made

retroactive to reduce ICBC rates, hospital premiums, ferry rates and

all the rest of it....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Bring in the amendment? Will you vote for it?

Tell me you will. Tell me you'll second it. You know you would never

vote for such a thing because it would hopelessly embarrass the already

embarrassed position of this government.

MR. LAUK: Jiggery-pokery.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, as I've already said, and others

have mentioned it, several significant authorities dealing with

economic policy in this country have already told us that the

Anti-Inflation Board is not working, that it is so hopelessly one-sided

and lopsided in favour of corporations and business that no one can

take it seriously. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board himself,

Mr. Jean Pepin, has said that.

The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) in this Legislature has

said it. Do you understand the political significance of that? A man

who sits here as the provincial leader of the federal party now in

power tells us that he himself is not satisfied with what his own

federal party has done.

The hon. Liberal leader in this House is going to vote against this

bill. He has told us and he's told us why. He has told us that he knows

that the hopeless, absurd and inconsistent position of this coalition

makes it insufferable and impossible to vote for it. The man is putting

his career on the line because he knows the same truth we do. It is

hopelessly biased in favour of business and against the ordinary

working person. The leader of the Liberal Party is voting against a

bill which his own federal government introduced originally.

Further, the leader of the Conservative Party in this House (Mr.

Wallace) has also attacked Bill 16. Why? On the same honest grounds. On

the same grounds of intellectual rigour; on the same grounds of concern

for the facts. He knows the same facts that the people know: it is

hopelessly one-sided and lopsided. And he is voting against it too.

The former leader of his party, Mr. Stanfield, lost a federal

election introducing the programme which the Prime Minister, Mr.

Trudeau, introduced about six months later. The leader of the

Conservative Party is putting his own career on the line. He's telling

us what we know to be the case: the bill is unfair; it's not working.

It's biased and deeply prejudiced against ordinary working people in

this country. Of course we cannot support it.

Restraint begins at home, Mr. Speaker. A monitoring agency that had

the power to tell the Treasury Board to turn back its own inflationary

[ Page 2083 ]

increases would be something in the form of an amendment which we

probably could vote for. Restraint begins at home; moral leadership

begins at home. This government has exercised no restraint and no moral

leadership. The example it has set has been a bad one, a bad one from

beginning to end.

Mr. Speaker, this coalition promised during the election campaign

that it would not increase taxes. This coalition solemnly promised that

it would not increase taxes. In fact, during the campaign they promised

that if they were in government they would freeze taxes. The moment

they came to power, piece after piece of legislation was altered; Act

after Act of governments were changed; price after price was increased.

Now the taxes are going up too.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) announced an

increase by two-thirds in the cost to municipalities of their share in

the payment for social assistance in this province. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Mr. Curtis) gave them $10 million, the Minister of

Human Resources took back $6.5 million. The only way municipalities are

going to be able to make up that $6.5 million is by raising taxes. This

government has forced the municipalities to raise taxes. This

government has broken its own promise. That coalition has once again

been demonstrated to have no sound, consistent, coherent, economic

policy, because they are a coalition, not based on principle but based

on opportunism.

Let me tell you something about the hopeless, the absurd and the

inconsistent position of this government. Let me remind this House that

the government that preaches restraint increased ICBC rates by 100 to

400 per cent. The salaries and the incomes of the citizens of my riding

were not increased proportionately by 100 to 400 per cent to help them

pay that.

This coalition, Mr. Speaker, has increased electricity and natural

gas rates an average of 12 per cent. The coalition which preaches

restraint did not permit the citizens of my riding to increase their

incomes by 12 per cent to make up for it.

This coalition allowed an increase in home-heating oil of 4.5 per

cent per gallon. This coalition did not permit the citizens of my

riding to increase their incomes in order to pay for that increase.

This coalition eliminated the price freeze altogether on propane and gasoline. This coalition preaches restraint.

This coalition allowed an increase in residential rents from 8 per

cent to 10.6 per cent. They did not allow the tenants of my riding to

increase their incomes proportionately. This coalition allowed rent

increases of 8 per cent to 10.6 per cent — the coalition that preaches

restraint.

They cancelled a plan to introduce rent controls on commercial

premises, Mr. Speaker. Then they turned around and told us about

restraint. They eliminated the price freeze on food, drugs and

beverages. Then they told us about restraint and introduced Bill 16.

They allowed price increases on bread and milk, two of the fundamentals

of any diet in our society. Then they turned around and preached

restraint.

They introduced a budget which increased sales tax by 40 per cent.

Then they turned around and preached restraint. They increased personal

income taxes; they increased taxes on the sick; they increased hospital

co-insurance in acute and extended care by 400 per cent. What kind of

an example is that? Where is the restraint, and how did it begin in

your home? It didn't at all. There was no restraint at all by that

coalition. They increased Medicare premiums by 50 per cent. Where was

the restraint then? They increased the cigarette and tobacco tax. They

increased B.C. Ferries by 100 per cent.

Just two days ago, Mr. Speaker, they doubled the rates for entry

into provincial parks. Presumably, tomorrow there will be another

doubling or tripling or quadrupling of some other rate in some other

place.

This coalition has no consistent economic policy. Time after time we

have seen example after example of wildly inflationary increases. Then

they turn around and introduce Bill 16 and tell us they are going to

control inflation. This is hopeless; it is inconsistent and it is

absurd, Mr. Speaker.

This government is required to set an example. They have set one, a

bad one. They have permitted in the province of British Columbia the

highest unemployment rate we have ever seen in our history. As of this

week some 112,000 of our citizens are out of work — 9.7 per cent of the

work force. In classical economic terms, and speaking especially to the

member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) he is well aware, I hope, that

people in positions of power tend to increase unemployment in order to

reduce inflation. This is the ordinary saw-off; this is the

conventional balancing act.

This government has somehow managed to beat the traditional and the

classical mode: they have managed to increase unemployment, and

increase inflation. A remarkable achievement. Perhaps for another

moment we could stand in silence and congratulate the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Unemployment is now at 9.7 per cent; 112,000

persons out of work. Price after price has been doubled, tripled and

quadrupled. This is a remarkable achievement. It is an achievement that

has been noticed, Mr. Speaker.

The chairman of the board at Woodward's, in his own introductory

remarks to his annual report published just days ago, informed his

stockholders that for the first year ever in the history of that

corporation they lost money. They lost money last

[ Page 2084 ]

year in Woodward's, one of the major British Columbia employers. The

chairman of the board of Woodward's, hardly a supporter of my own

party, attributed the loss last month to one single factor: a decision

by the provincial government to increase the sales tax by 40 per cent,

a decision by the provincial government to increase ICBC rates from 100

to 400 per cent. The chairman of the board of Woodward's informed his

stockholders that because of that cut in purchasing power, because of

the absence of purchasing power in the hands of the consumers, fewer

people came to his stores to purchase his goods, and Woodward's lost

money.

Not just the chairman of Woodward's made these remarks, though. A

civil servant in this province made the same remarks. Dr. Rae, the

Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development,

told the people of British Columbia the same story. Last month we saw

the highest cost-of-living increase anywhere in Canada right here in

this province. That was attributed directly to the increase of 40 per

cent in the sales tax and the increase of from 100 to 400 per cent in

ICBC rates. That is a direct responsibility of the coalition government.

This government has the nerve, the audacity, to introduce Bill 16

and preach restraint, and on the other hand has to stand by and be

embarrassed when one of its own civil servants blames them for the

cost-of-living increase last month.

We didn't make that up, Mr. Speaker. We didn't invent that stuff. No

guy stood in the back of a room and churned that nonsense out on a

mimeograph machine. The Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of

Economic Development attributed the cost-of-living increase directly to

a 40 per cent increase in sales tax and to a 100 to 400 per cent

increase in ICBC costs.

This government is in a hopeless, absurd and inconsistent position.

It preaches restraint on the one hand and practises none at all on the

other. This government is required to set a moral example, and they

have set a bad one.

Let me conclude by telling you about one particularly unbelievable

example this government has set. Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, one of the

many now-breaking campaign promises made by the coalition? They said

that they were going to cut the salaries of cabinet ministers. Sure

enough, they got into office and they said, indeed, they were going to

cut the salaries of cabinet ministers; indeed, they were going to cut

the salaries of MLAs in the back bench; and further, they were going to

cut the salaries of certain persons, political appointees, hired in

various political offices in this government.

They made that promise, Mr. Speaker, and when they made it they

didn't put any deadline on that promise. They didn't say it would end

in a year or two or five or 10. They said: "We're going to cut the

salaries; we're going to set an example." They said: "We're going to

start this restraint here in our own home." And we believed them and

the people believed them. The people believed them, the people voted

for them and sure enough they cut the salaries. But do you know what

happened, Mr. Speaker? We've got the bill here in our books and it

turns out they only cut them for a year. Just for a year! Sure enough,

the

section of the Act which....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. You are now reflecting on

another bill that is before the House, and you are not speaking to the

principle of Bill 16. Would you confine your remarks to Bill 16,

please, and not debate another bill that will be debated another day?

MR. LEA: There is no principle to Bill 16!

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am pointing out is

that this government, in every aspect of its decision-making in

legislation, has a responsibility to set a consistent example. They

tricked the people about our salaries; the restraint only lasts for a

year. There has been no restraint whatsoever in the wild and

inflationary rate increases that they've introduced since they became

government.

It's impossible, Mr. Speaker, to support Bill 16. They promised that

they would cut taxes. I mentioned before — and I will conclude with

this final remark — that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm) informed, very recently, the municipalities of British

Columbia that they were going to be responsible for coming up with an

additional $6.5 million in order to participate in the now-increased

share in provincial and municipal welfare costs.

This is quite a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker. It's a remarkable

achievement. They made a promise five months ago but last week the

Minister of Human Resources breaks yet another piece of it. It's quite

an amazing achievement.

The president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities has said that it

is, in his opinion, unfair, that it is a form of double taxation, and

that very form of double taxation was itself attacked by the former

mayor of Surrey, the now Minister of Human Resources.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes, the small town mayor of Human Resources, the Hon. William Vander Zalm.

Mr. Speaker, this government is in trouble. That coalition is in

trouble. No one believes them any more. They fought an election on the

grounds of

[ Page 2085 ]

restraint, and immediately on assuming office they practised no

restraint at all. Were they an example of any conviction and strength,

it would be a little more difficult for us to speak against this. Were

there consistency, were there soundness of argument, were there

documentation to demonstrate that the Anti-Inflation Board is fair and

equitable, it would be harder to speak against it. Were it part, as an

instrument, of a planned economy developed in order to benefit every

citizen in Canada, we couldn't vote against it at all. But it is none

of those three things, Mr. Speaker. It is, in fact, an inconsistent, an

impossible, an unhappy and doomed-to-a-miserable-end piece of

legislation.

No one on this side supports it. I suspect some of their own

backbenchers don't support it, and I suspect as well that in two or

three years' time this coalition is going to be hoping desperately that

everyone is going to have forgotten they ever introduced this farce,

this joke, this hoax called Bill 16. It simply won't work, Mr. Speaker.

They won't let it work. Their own example contradicts their own

legislation.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I rise to speak in favour of

Bill 16, the anti-inflation measures, and I'll try to stick a little

closer to the bill than some of the members of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was

quoting the price of home lots a while ago, but it's probably pretty

relevant to their basic sense of values and costs anyway. He was

telling us we can buy home lots in Prince George for $2,300 a lot. I

admit we're quite efficient up there and we do have the best-priced

lots in the province, but you can't quite buy them for $2,300, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. LLOYD: We used to range in the $6,000 to $8,000 range,

and in the last sales they went at between $ 10,000 and $12,500. So

where he finds his $2,300 is a little bit hard to understand. But when

you see the problem they have trying to understand why ICBC rates, why

the ferry rates and why the income tax and sales tax had to go up, then

it really isn't all that hard to understand why they think you should

be able to buy lots for $2,300.

I would just like to mention on those ICBC rates.... I was

discussing with the Prince George manager of ICBC, and he tells me what

the increase in rates has done, what the restoring of responsibility

and driving care has done. This same month a year ago they registered

four times as many claims as they have this month. I find that very

heartening. Not only will our costs go down but the accidents go down,

the injuries go down. I can see a whole range of benefits coming from

this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He gave away his car!

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, I speak for Fort George, the white

spruce capital of the world. Our riding depends for 75 cents out of

every $1 on the forest industry, and when the public service sector and

the Crown corporations allow their wages to spiral uncontrolled, the

basic industries, the forestry, the agriculture, the mining, the

fishing and the tourist industry cannot compete any more. I just quote

a few labour statistics to show the percentage of the labour force....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Fort George has the floor.

MR. LLOYD: The total labour force in B.C. In 1974 was some

1,073,000 people. The ones who qualified for unionization were some

930,000 people, leaving a balance of some 143,000 people.

MR. LAUK: Table it.

MR. LLOYD: Of those qualified for unionization — the 930,000

— the unionized at that time were some 401,000, or 43 per cent. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) the other evening said that in

1976 the unionized workers have risen to 440,000, or some 47.3 per

cent. Of this, the government employs some 196,000 or 45 per cent of

the unionized workers in B.C. That same 196,000 is some 20 per cent of

our overall total labour force in British Columbia.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

When we have a situation that started shortly after the 1972

election, when the NDP gave in to the ferry workers, they started a

spiral among all the government employees there. When the ferry workers

pressured Bob Strachan into those ridiculous wage increases and the

hours of work, the overtime, it just started a spiral off right through

all the Crown corporations.

MR. CHABOT: They held a gun to his head.

MR. LLOYD: B.C. Hydro, which has always prided itself on

having one of the highest wage rates among Crown corporations, what

happened to them? Their man-day productivity dropped and their costs

skyrocketed. They put a lot more work out to private

[ Page 2086 ]

enterprise; they just couldn't afford their work. The lowest

department, the Highways department, which has always had a problem

getting good men because of their wages, what happened to the pride

they used to have? Of course their production fell; road maintenance

and construction costs skyrocketed there. No wonder "Pot-hole" Lea

couldn't build any highways — the former Highways minister from Prince

Rupert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peter Pot-hole.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi)

speaks of the virtues and the necessity of the overtime payment

requirements, portal-to-portal workdays, 35-hour weeks. It just shows

what real responsibility he has, or what knowledge of the entire

province he has. Some particular industries have seasonal labour, Mr.

Speaker, such as farming or logging. We've all heard the old saying,

"you make hay while the sun shines." Well, certainly it's true in

logging as much as in farming. In our area we're very fortunate in the

summertime when we get dry enough weather to log, and when we have to

put the extra hours in. I think the same thing holds true on farming.

If we're going to say that as soon as he starts putting in anything

over eight or nine hours a day it goes to double time, and we try to

compete with the government employees' wages, well, it just pushes our

primary industries right off the market.

A lot of these jobs that we talk about in logging, they're miles and

miles from town. They're not going to work eight hours a day and then

sit around a bunkhouse the rest of the evening. They'd like that

opportunity to earn some extra money, because they're not working 12

months of the year like a lot of government employees. They're working

seasonally. They only have a short period to work, and it's very

important to them to be able to accumulate as much as they can while

they're at it.

I think the Forest Service shows pretty well what has happened in

this wage spiral, in the fight for shorter hours. As soon as the

overtime shift adjustment stopped, as soon as they had to drive

portal-to-portal, how could they properly go and inspect a job 100

miles from town? What happens here? Efficiency drops; they can't give

the same supervision.

Another problem is the look-out personnel there. This was a job that

certain people took. They were older people or handicapped people, a

lot of them, but they took a lot of pride in it, going up on the top of

those mountains, sitting there alone all summer protecting the forests

and protecting their country. But when they unionized and the shorter

hours came in and they had to have overtime, what happened to those

jobs, Mr. Speaker? And this was under the previous administration. What

happened to those jobs? They were eliminated. I'll bet those people

really appreciate what the unions and the NDP have done for them.

But probably, Mr. Speaker, the part that hurts the most up in our

part of the country is what happened when the B.C. Railway employees

tried to catch up with the spiralling inflation there. As you probably

know, Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Railway is the life-blood of B.C. It's the

artery joining the communities throughout the interior with the major

population centres at the coast who are dependent on the interior for

their sustenance and growth. The present status quo of the BCR, I

think, really clearly indicates why Bill 16 is so necessary. Last

year's wage increase that was granted to trainmen, that was yielded by

the NDP to end a disastrous strike, is typical of the situation that

has plagued the BCR and their operation.

These same BCR trainmen who a year ago were holding up the BCR so we

couldn't get lumber moving, so we couldn't get freight moving, these

same BCR trainmen wouldn't accept a contract that had already been

issued on the national lines, on the CPR and the CNR, because they knew

they could bluff and bamboozle the NDP government into a higher rate of

increase. Once this was done, it started off another mighty wage

spiral, another race to re-establish the ratio.

That's the most serious blow that resulted from that to re-establish

the wage ratio — the pecking order. The other unions joined the race

for the higher wages and the overtime benefits and the fringe

conditions until today B.C.'s heartbeat has been practically stopped.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents need Bill 16 to enable our government

to enter into meaningful Anti-Inflation Board regulations with the

federal government to control inflation in the public sector which

accelerates and inflames the race for ever-higher wages in the Crown

corporation sectors. Perhaps Bill 16 will not restore the heartbeat to

British Columbia. Perhaps the other bill that we have before the House

will have to be required, and changes in the management of BCR are

probably also necessary.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps even the joint council of unions working for the BCR....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, could you relate to Bill 16?

MR. LAUK: One out of 10 for Howard. Keep plugging, Howard.

MR. LLOYD: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, a joint

[ Page 2087 ]

council of unions working for the BCR will recognize their

responsibility to their fellow citizens, to the forest industry who

faced colossal losses over the last three years, and to the communities

which depend on the forest industry and on the BCR for their

livelihood. Yes, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the council will supply the

transfusion necessary to restore strength to the heartbeat of the

British Columbia Railway. Perhaps it will, but my constituents aren't

holding their breath in anticipation.

MR. LAUK: I wish you'd hold your breath — forever.

MR. LLOYD: Their patience, like their resources and their

finances, has been totally exhausted. They are completely frustrated

with the childish labour-management conflict which has gone on and on

with the BCR.

My riding depends for over 75 per cent of their income on the forest

industry. This ratio could change if we could encourage other resource

development in the interior. We speak of the tremendous growth that's

possible in developing the coal resources. We hear of possibilities of

steel mills for the interior, but none of these developments will take

place. Even the forest resources will falter unless the wages in the

public sector are restrained. We will be unable to afford the wages to

our own labour force, even.

Why should the workers in the primary industries subsidize the

public sector? They cannot afford to. Our products are being priced out

of the world market. Mr. Speaker, we need Bill 16. As the Labour

minister, the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr.

Williams), stated during his earlier debate on this bill regarding the

Crown employees — and this is something the opposition keeps

overlooking — that's what Bill 16 is all about. Are they going to allow

55 per cent of the organized employees in this province to be regulated

by the anti-inflation regulations and are they going to exempt 45 per

cent from these regulations?

I will just read this again for the benefit of the opposition. They seem to keep overlooking this.

Is that what the NDP is saying? They are going to vote against this

bill; they are not prepared to subject the public-sector employees —

almost 50 per cent of the organized employees in British Columbia. They

are going to vote against the bill which would bring them under the

same control as their fellow workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour minister goes on to say in that same speech:

Virtually all of the employees we have in the public sector are

unionized. The consequences of this, because this covers all the public

service — B.C. Hydro employees, the ICBC, the school teachers,

university employees, faculties, community colleges, B.C.

Rail...hospitals, nurses, the whole range of what we have considered as

a public service responsibility — those are the people who are within

our sector, the public sector. Recognize, if you will, that the cost of

employing each one of these employees finally comes back directly

either to a minister of this government or to the responsibility of a

school board or a municipality or a regional district in this province.

The burden of their compensation bears directly upon this government

or the other levels of government and thence directly on the taxpayer

of British Columbia.

I think that's very important, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore there is a double reason why we want to have those

public-sector employees brought under the same influence of controls as

is available to the private sector, because the demands that they make

the consequences of those demands are inflation also bear directly upon

the tax burden of the citizens of this province. Therefore we can lose

two ways. If inflation is increased by reason of inappropriate

settlements in the public sector we all suffer, and most certainly

those people who are on fixed and limited incomes will suffer. But the

suffering also comes in another direction because it becomes the

responsibility of the taxpayers to bear the burden of that compensation.

We want to have for the employees in our public sector the same

treatment as those...in our private sector. This will be the thrust of

the government in the days and the months to come. But, Mr. Speaker, we

want them to have no more and no less, and we ask the opposition to

consider seriously whether they are prepared to oppose the

legislation....

MR. LAUK: We are.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are also concerned at

the taxpayers footing the bill for the public sector and as citizens

who are genuinely concerned about the rampant inflation that threatens

our province's future. I ask all the members of this House to vote in

favour of a return to realism and a return to responsibility and vote

for Bill 16.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was a little upset when the member

for Delta (Mr. Davidson) who is not in his place at the moment read his

speech. I felt it was an offence against the conventions of the House.

I thought that if a member should read a speech in the House he should

table it.

Then when I heard the hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), I

wish he had read his speech, and read the hon. member for Delta's (Mr.

Davidson'

s) speech. The member for Fort George said, in essence, that

people take great pride in earning low wages, that if they are

underpaid and

[ Page 2088 ]

poorly paid they have pride in their work place and their

productivity increases. I have never heard of such a thing! He's

suggesting that poverty equals purity. What a bunch of cliches,

half-truths and ancient homilies! More uncharitable people around here

would say that speech was insincere, political opportunist hogwash!

The member for Fort George continuously comes into this House, Mr.

Speaker, and represents those people he knows well — Genghis Khan and

Louis XIV.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Nobody knows that for sure.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to note also that the Minister of Finance, who

is sponsoring this bill through the House, was not in his seat while

three of the speeches were made this afternoon. I have been told he was

also absent at other times when debate on the bill that he is piloting

through the House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill please, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I'm dealing with the bill. The minister....

DEPUTY . SPEAKER: You are dealing with the minister, Hon. Member. Back

to the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister should be in the House when the bill is being debated.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Where were you yesterday, young fellow?

MR. LAUK: I was in your riding, and you are in trouble, Mr.

Minister! I called on your mother and she said that she's never going

to vote Socred again. Not very proud of you, Evan. (Laughter.) What you

could do to try and rectify the situation is stay in the House when

your bill is being debated. Don't follow the example of that wayward

leader of yours who is too frightened to come into this House ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member....

MR. LAUK: ...and face this little opposition dominated by that overwhelming right-wing coalition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the

anti-inflation bill — now that both the Premier and the Minister of

Finance have come in specifically to hear my speech on the subject —

there are one or two points before....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The proof of the pudding, Mr. Speaker; he's back to

the countinghouse, counting up that unreasonable surplus that he's

fleeced off the backs of the British Columbia taxpayer, that surplus

that they're going to use in a cynical, Machiavellian, purely political

fashion in election year to buy off the voters with their own money.

What a hoax! Then they have the nerve to bring in Bill 16, the

Anti-Inflation Board legislation. A disaster!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I seem to hear some noises in the far corner of the

back bench — in the wilderness of the back bench where the frustrations

for political power are seething and churning and boiling and bubbling.

Some of them wander up here like to odd bubble. They sit in a cabinet

seat, they swing back and forth and dream about better days. The member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) dreams about former days. (Laughter.)

He knows he should be there; he knows that the AIB legislation is a

disaster. He knows that the Minister of Finance and the Premier are

being controlled by that old gentleman up in Kelowna. He knows that

he's pulling the strings in this nonsense.

What better example, Mr. Speaker, of the fraud that's being

perpetrated on the people of this province by raising these taxes,

increasing tremendous surpluses in this province, than the example of

the Minister of Human Resources placing an increased welfare burden on

municipalities, on the homeowner, on land taxes? What a hoax! The

Minister of Municipal Affairs gives them money with one hand; the

Minister of Human Resources takes it away with the other. I've never

seen such a flim-flam game in the history of British Columbia politics!

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): The last three years.

MR. LEA: You go drink some water from the Fraser. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Human Resources, with the

acquiescence, the approval and the direction of the Premier and the

Minister of Finance, stabbed the landowner and the homeowner in the

back in this province. It's a shameful, disgraceful act! It was

planned; it was plotted. You are fooling no one, I say through you, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it seems the back bench is a little restless. There should be a process of having

[ Page 2089 ]

them going on furlough, even while this session is sitting. They

could go on furlough, then the hon. member for Columbia River could go

to Calgary and pick himself up a new suit.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) made a speech some time

ago....since we're in the habit in this House of debating a bill and

pulling it back, then debating it and pulling it back, I can't recall

the day on which the Minister of Labour spoke. But he spoke at length

about the legislation before the House. He tried that little

sophisticated jumble, the double-shuffle. He used better words than the

average front bencher, longer words, but it was still the

double-shuffle. It was still doubletalk.

The man from Glad, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams)

managed, among other things, to slander one of the members of the House

before he finished his speech. He was made to withdraw in the hall. But

among the things he did say, Mr. Speaker, is that through his

courageous government.... The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and

the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and himself went to Ottawa and they

demanded, on behalf of all of the little people in British Columbia,

that the excise levy on resource exports be discontinued or not applied

in the anti-inflationary programme. And they were heroes. Where were

they in October and November of 1975 when the NDP administration were

negotiating with the federal government? Where were they when we made

those demands?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was the NDP government?

MR. LAUK: All of a sudden they said: "Oh, we did this. We

came to government" — this is the way the Minister of Labour put it —

"and we found out about the excise levy." It was on the front page of

two Vancouver city dailies for 10 days ...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...in October and November of 1975; and the Minister

of Labour claims, "We found out when we came to office." This is the

kind of nonsense we get from these ministers on a constant basis. If

they're not slandering, and made to withdraw in the hall, they're being

sued for slander for demoting civil servants and hiding behind them,

hiding their own incompetence.

He talked about labour unions and the ordinary little people in the

trade union movement. He talked about Alcan. Yes, the workers at Alcan

said: "We will negotiate a settlement in accordance with the standards

and the guidelines set down by the Anti-Inflation Board. We will do so

because we trust the NDP administration of the day to control the

prices of other commodities and their cost of living."

They had the trust in the government of the day to bring about

control of the prices that they were, as workers, facing from day to

day: food, clothing, their homes, their cars, their gasoline, their

home-heating fuels, their medical payments. They trusted the government

of the day to hold that back and, yes, they said: "We will negotiate a

settlement within the anti-inflationary guidelines."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They relied on the government, Mr. Speaker. They

relied on any government to control the prices in public and private

industry, in the public industry of the government which includes

ferries and insurance, which includes taxes and hospital insurance. And

they were betrayed.

The story of this bill and the story of this government of broken promises is betrayal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: The people of this province feel betrayed and they

have been betrayed. They were promised a freeze on taxes and they were

betrayed. They were promised a freeze on prices of food and other

commodities and they were betrayed. They were betrayed every step along

this cataclysmic road that this right-wing coalition is plodding along.

And if only there was an election soon to put a stop to their madness,

their pre-Cambrian economics and their thug-like approach to civil

rights....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, would you kindly use more temperate language?

MR. LAUK: I'll withdraw the word "thug-like" and say

right-wing-coalition-like approach, which uncharitable people in the

province are now describing as a thug-like approach, but I would not do

that. I'm not that uncharitable.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: But you sure can't fool those people, Mr. Speaker.

This is a government of privilege for the already privileged, a

government which espouses only the values of corporations, not the

values of people. If lifting the price freeze on food, if increasing

income taxes, insurance rates, sales taxes, ferry rates, hydro rates

and medicare payments puts the ordinary citizen at a financial

disadvantage in this province, Bill 16 puts them in the chains of

personal bankruptcy. Bill 16 betrays the majority of British

Columbians, betrays the low-income families, betrays

[ Page 2090 ]

the organized labour movement and the unorganized.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Bill 16 does something else as an encore, if you

think that isn't bad enough. Through this bill they are making a

concerted attempt against civil rights in this province. The province

has the power under the BNA Act to legislate with respect to property

and civil rights. There's a

section of this bill that will allow this

Big Brother government to invade our homes, our businesses, our trade

union offices, our organizations' offices, seize documents without

warrants and without any legal security to the citizens of this

province.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This is a right-wing government that threatens the

very democratic process that we've become accustomed to in this

province, in this country and in the British Commonwealth for many,

many hundreds of years.

Mr. Speaker, Big Brother has come eight years before Orwell expected it to arrive.

MR. KEMPF: Do you believe all that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LEA: So do you; that's why you're embarrassed. The laughter of embarrassment.

MR. LAUK: There's a dangerous majority in this House, Mr.

Speaker. There's a majority of right-wingers who are trampling on

hard-won civil liberties, the hard-won civil liberties of all of the

citizens of this province. I believe, therefore, that this bill is

totally and completely unconstitutional because it offends natural

justice. I'm not just talking about the nonsensical, W.C. Fields

economics that they've been perpetrating upon us all. I'm talking about

the offence against civil liberties in this province.

There was an

article in Jack Wasserman's column a couple of weeks

ago about a young couple who were invaded by a police force who ripped

their apartment apart looking for some stolen goods, and it was found

later that the police had no warrant, no evidence and no reason to come

into their apartment. It was all there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 16?

MR. LAUK: Bill 16 exactly, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you

recognize the

article of Jack Wasserman's. It was exactly that. If you

allow this bill to pass, Mr. Speaker, without immediately getting out

of that chair and reporting it to the Governor-General of Canada, who

should disallow this bill, then you're not doing your duty, with the

greatest conceivable respect, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: It is an attack on civil liberties. Without warrant

and without evidence, records, private documents, papers can be seized;

premises can be entered without recourse to any legal security for our

citizens.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, the great freedom-fighters, with the

seagull right over their heads, walking across this province and

saying: "Those NDPers, they're not democratic. They're taking away your

freedom?" If we brought in a bill like this, can you imagine what would

happen? You know what we did with the Land Commission Act? We added the

words "and the commission can acquire land." Do you remember that? With

that little phrase the chicken-little gang, the hole-in-the-wall gang,

went all over the province saying: "They're taking away our freedoms!

There's a Red under every bed!"

This

section of Bill 16 allows for the complete trammelling of civil

liberties and civil rights under search and seizure protections that

we've had in this province and this country for hundreds of years. It's

a disgrace! For that reason alone I would vote against this bill, let

alone, as I say, Mr. Speaker, what they have done to the economy of

this province that's been so well catalogued by the members of the

opposition. It is significant indeed, as the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) has stated, that the leader of the Tory party (Mr.

Wallace) and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) are also

opposed. It is very significant.

This government is a failure. The sad thing is that they don't know

it themselves yet. They don't know it, or they'd withdraw this bill.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Premier might get involved in this debate and give us some reasons as to why we should ...

MR. LEA: He's scared.

MR. LAUK: Scared silly.

MR. STUPICH: .... . support this legislation in the form in

which it has been introduced. Certainly the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Wolfe) didn't give us much reason. In fairness to him, I think we

should admit that he told us everything he knew about it, but that took

about 45 seconds. We were hoping that perhaps the Premier might get

more involved and might give us some good reason as to why we should

[ Page 2091 ]

reconsider the position that has been advanced by, I think, every

member of the opposition so far, and I believe most of us have spoken.

Mr. Speaker, as members of the Legislature, I think we're here to

consider legislation that will serve society, legislation designed to

provide at least a basic standard of living for everyone in our

community, a standard that's related to our ability to produce goods

and services and, as I say, to make sure that everyone in the community

has some opportunity to participate in that. Through a mixture of

government programmes, government legislation from time to time, and

also, Mr. Speaker, through the system, if you like — if you can call it

a system — of employer-employee confrontation that surfaces from time

to time, we have established some measure of equity in our society, but

I think we'll all admit that we have quite a way to go yet.

One of the things that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did

say in introducing this legislation was that the programme — the

anti-inflation programme, and we're looking at this as part of it —

must seem to be fair if it is going to be accepted by the community.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we wonder whether the government can really say at

this point in time, whether they can pretend that the programme and the

policies of this government so far indicate to the community as a

whole, that this government is in any way at all trying to be fair.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention — and I think it has been mentioned

already — to one action on the part of the government, and that is the ICBC

rate increase, and not so much the fact that there was an increase, but the

fact that the.... I assume it is a fact. It has not been denied. One of the

invitations I would like to issue to the Minister of Finance when he rises to

close the debate is: if this is not true information, would he tell us just

exactly what the precise nature of the agreement is that this government has

worked out with Ottawa with respect to the ICBC premium increases?

There were indications earlier, and Mr. Pepin said that the rate

increases were going to be referred to the Anti-Inflation Board. It was

subsequently reported in the press that a deal was made. I'm reading

now from a press quotation:

"To put it mildly, B.C. was reluctant to sign on the dotted

line when the signature could kill the upcoming boost in car insurance rates.

There was not an implicit understanding or a vague promise by Macdonald to

do everything he could. It was a carte blanche undertaking from the federal

Minister of Finance to exempt ICBC from the anti-inflation guidelines."

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: is that evidence that this government is being fair

with the people of British Columbia, when it is making that kind of deal that

is working against the interests of the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a lot of baloney.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that's a lot

of baloney. I have invited the minister, when he stands up.... I have

not heard this disputed so far, I'm inviting him when he stands up to

close the debate to answer that particular question.

Mr. Speaker, what about the increase in ferry rates that has also

been talked about? It is very substantial. One newspaper report quoted

that in some instances people will be paying a sixfold increase. I know

there have been some adjustments in some of the rates. But again, Mr.

Speaker, in the interests of convincing the people of this province

that the government will be fair — and I remind the minister that he

said, on opening the debate on this bill, that it had to appear to be

fair as well as be fair — in the interests of making it appear to be

fair, is the minister telling us that increases in rates for government

services such as the ferry rates will also be subject to review by the

Anti-Inflation Board?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also assured us — and I don't

like that kind of assurance — that it would be a temporary arrangement.

It will probably expire in April, 1977. Beyond what the Minister of

Finance himself said, the Premier entered into this, although he has

not taken

part in this debate in the House, in a statement issued by

him on April 9. He tried to reassure the people of the province that it

was just a temporary programme. Well, Mr. Speaker, a temporary

programme is all very well and good. We know that wage controls are

intended to work right now.

As a matter of fact, effective on the day that the Prime Minister of

Canada introduced his statement, October 14, 1975, wage control was to

be effective from that point in time. But what about price control?

They were hoping to make a system of price control work. If, indeed, we

do abandon this anti-inflation programme in April, 1977, we will be

abandoning it before any real measure of price control can be

implemented, can be proven to be effective, because much of it will

depend on profit statements that are being prepared by corporations. In

the case of some of them at least, their year-end will not even be

before that date.

Mr. Speaker, if we abandon the programme in those early stages, it

will not be a fair programme. It will be a programme which controls

wages only and, in some isolated instances, may have some influence on

price, but certainly cannot pretend to control prices if it is such a

short-term programme. I am concerned also that any short-term programme

is bound to simply build up a temporary dam against some price

increases, even some wage increases, and once you abandon the programme

all you will have

[ Page 2092 ]

accomplished will be some delay in the effect of extra costs, not a permanent rollback of any of these.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in speaking on this

debate, at one point.... I have notes here that I want to refer to,

remarks made by a lot of the members of the opposition, but it would

seem to me that the ones I want to refer to are all absent. However,

I'll have to comment briefly, at least, on what the Minister of Labour

had to say.

When the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the Leader of the

Opposition, was talking about the remuneration for some captains of

industry, the Minister of Labour interjected "So what?" as though it

were not really a cost on the community as a whole when enormous

salaries, compared to what others are earning, are paid to some

individuals in industry. Mr. Speaker, that is part of the inflationary

process.

Certainly if increasing a person's income from $3 to $3.50 an hour

is inflationary, well, then it is even more inflationary when that

person reads in the paper that somebody else's income has gone from

$76,000 to $100,000. Maybe the total impact, in terms of dollars, is

not as much, but certainly the psychological effect is much worse. So I

think it is irresponsible for the Minister of Labour to be interjecting

"So what?" when the hon. Leader of the Opposition is drawing to the

attention of the House the large salaries and the increases in salaries

that are being paid to some people.

The Minister of Labour also described the fancy skating going on by

the NDP in our opposition voiced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of fancy skating, then

I think the Minister of Labour should take first prize.

Quoting from a news story, January 19, 1976, referring to the Minister of Labour speaking-

" 'Ottawa's wage and price controls and other

intrusions into the free market system are creating more problems than

they solve,' B.C.'s Labour minister said Friday in Vancouver."

Skipping a part: " 'When Prime Minister Trudeau says the free market

system is not working, I assume what he means is that the system is not

working in an equitable fashion for all Canadians,' Williams told the

convention of B.C. Truck Loggers Association."

Mr. Speaker, in this

article he is quoted as condemning the Ottawa

system as just not working. On the legislation before us, in his speech

in the House, he was supporting the Ottawa programme and supporting the

legislation that says that B.C. is going to go along with that

programme without any real questions — at least so far we have not

heard of any real questions, except for one that I will come to later —

raised by the government of British Columbia.

The Minister of Labour also said that labour leaders are not

prepared to share the load of fighting inflation. He denied that

himself when he went on to say that there was an example of the Kitimat

workers who supported the programme and passed a resolution in support

of the guidelines.

But, Mr. Speaker, what concerns organized labour is not the fact

that they are asked to be partners in fighting inflation, but the fact

that they are asked to bear the whole load of fighting inflation. They

are getting no reassurance from the federal government or from the

provincial government that anybody else is going to be bearing any of

the load. That's the concern of organized workers, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to the Act.

If they could be reassured by the actions of this government...and

I've already told you some of the actions of this government that do

anything but reassure workers that they are not going to be carrying

the full load. If they could have that kind of reassurance, then they

might feel differently about this legislation. We would feel

differently about this legislation. But we do not have that

reassurance. We do not have that assurance from this government or from

the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: This one's the worst!

MR. STUPICH: This one's the worst? Well, I suppose that goes without saying.

Mr. Speaker, going on with questions that were raised, I think,

again by the Hon. Minister of Labour, he asked about what steps our

government took to support the federal government in this

anti-inflationary programme. We did take steps. We were concerned and

we took action.

There was general concern in the community about inflation when the

Prime Minister issued his statement in October. This concern, I think,

was voiced in the Saskatchewan budget speech as well as it was voiced

anywhere:

"We are doing our part to make this national effort a

success. Inflation attacks the living standards of those on low and

fixed incomes. It erodes the value of savings. It reduces the value of

pensions for those who have retired or are about to retire. It creates

economic and social chaos. It adds uncertainty to the present and

compounds the problem of planning for the future."

Those were some of the concerns that were in the community, Mr.

Speaker. There was this concern in the community. There was a readiness

on the part of the public, including organized labour, to support a

real programme to fight inflation if everybody was convinced it was, in

the words of our Minister of Finance, "going to appear to be a fair

programme, as

[ Page 2093 ]

well as being a fair programme." Quoting again from the speech:

"Let me briefly summarize the facts which, for

Canada, underline the urgency of taking action against inflation. In

1975 the Canadian economy had its worst year in more than 20 years:

real growth in the economy was a mere two-tenths of 1 per cent."

Not just in B.C., Mr. Speaker; we're talking about Canada as a whole.

"In 1975 unemployment in Canada increased to more than

7 per cent. In 1975 the consumer price index rose by nearly I I per

cent."

These are some of the problems; these are some of the reasons why

the community as a whole was ready to support a real programme, if it

was convinced that it was going to be a genuine and a fair programme to

fight inflation.

The Minister of Labour said that the NDP did nothing after October

14 to cooperate in this programme. He asked rhetorically: "What did

the NDP government of British Columbia do in Ottawa?" Mr. Speaker, I

quote from a speech by the then-Premier (Mr. Barrett) on November

7, 1975. He's repeating concerns too:

"We made known our concerns to Ottawa" — and this is

about the programme announced by Ottawa — "loud and clear. These were:

the federal programme was unfair to those on low and fixed incomes;

nothing had been done to ensure that the large financial institutions,

the banks, had their profits and interest rates controlled. The federal

announcement did nothing to improve the housing supply and make cheap

mortgage money available. The federal position would not curb

escalating food prices."

Those were some of the shortcomings that we voiced in Ottawa — the

Premier did and I went to the conference as Minister of Finance and

voiced these concerns on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Our

Premier of the day went on to say — we didn't just talk, we acted:

"On October 24 I announced a number of measures which

we were taking to make the national anti-inflation programme fairer to

British Columbians. Our programme included: an increase in Mincome

benefit levels from just under $250 a month to $265 a month for singles

and to $530 for couples; an increase in the minimum wage from $2.50 to

$3.

We weren't there long enough to do it — January 1 it was going to be effective.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You weren't here on January 1.

MR. STUPICH: To the sorrow of the people of British Columbia now, we weren't there on January 1.

The third point was continuation of rent control, with a decrease in

rent control levels from 10.6 per cent to approximately 8 per cent in

the coming year. We didn't do that either, Mr. Speaker, but we

certainly intended to, and it hasn't been done because the people of

B.C. made a mistake on December 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: No. 4: the plan to establish a housing

corporation of British Columbia to provide first mortgages at lower

interest rates. We didn't do that either, Mr. Speaker, and neither did

the present government.

Restraint on provincial government expenditures: that is continuing; there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, we did act, and we did argue in Ottawa for some of the

changes that should be made on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, what has the Socred coalition done in this time? Their

big move has been to introduce legislation that I'm not going to

discuss at this time — legislation that would reduce the salaries of

the elected members of this assembly. That's their biggest move. Has it

created any kind of a ripple out in the community? Have you seen

anybody else in the community offering to reduce their salaries as

well, in response to what was supposed to be a lead to the community?

If it wasn't offering us up as an example, what was the point of it

all? Surely the government goofed. They haven't invited the community

as a whole to follow along with this and to make it a real step in the

fight against inflation. All they have done is keep one of their

election promises by making this move, but they've done nothing to

fight inflation by this particular step.

What else have they done, Mr. Speaker? I've already referred to the

approach to the Anti-Inflation Board re ICBC, and the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has promised to talk about that when he gets

up to close the debate. What else have they done? They have one victory

in Ottawa in that they have joined with some other provinces to

persuade the federal government that they should cancel the export

profits tax. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a mixed blessing. Employees of

large export firms will have their wages controlled. The wages are

still going to be controlled, but the profits will not be controlled.

Maybe the Minister of Finance can tell us a little bit more about the

deal he made with Ottawa on this programme as well.

What are the safeguards for the people of British Columbia? Are

there going to be any requirements that any excess profits are going to

have to be invested in the province of British Columbia? What

[ Page 2094 ]

are the safeguards? Is it simply a deal to make sure that wages will be controlled but the profits will be decontrolled?

And what about companies selling to the domestic market having their

prices frozen and the same companies selling in the export market and

not having their prices frozen? What safeguards are there to make sure

that these companies will not maximize the amount of their business

done in export markets and minimize the amount done in domestic

markets, since the profits are controlled in one area and not in the

other? I'd like to hear something from the Minister of Finance about

the protection that he got for the people of British Columbia in

winning that victory — a victory that I suspect at this time is a

victory of mixed blessings.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite hear that, but he

suggested I ask someone. I was asking the Minister of Finance. I

appreciate that maybe I won't get the answer from him, and if we don't

then we'll ask someone else when the opportunity comes in estimates.

The Minister of Labour also went on to say that the Anti-Inflation

Board is working, although it's difficult to prove it statistically.

Well, I agree that it's difficult to prove it statistically because all

the statistics prove is that they aren't working. The Anti-Inflation

Board is working only with some degree of success with respect to

prices. So it would be very difficult to prove the opposite, when it

would appear that all the statistics, all of the evidence, is proving

that they just aren't working.

There's a story today in The Vancouver Sun that's just been

handed to me, and the headline is: "Unfairness Admitted in Controls

Programme. Ottawa Clamps Down on Price-hike Dodgers." The programme to

control prices, Mr. Speaker, is just not working. In spite of the

Minister of Labour saying it's difficult to prove statistically, Ottawa

is now admitting that their own programme to control prices is not

working. I'm going to come back to that. I think this government, as

well, is admitting that it isn't working, but that's a point that I

want to make a little later on. Mr. Speaker, you can't prove it

statistically because all the figures show the opposite to be the case.

What about collective bargaining? At the beginning of my remarks I

talked about some of the achievements we have made through collective

bargaining. While all of us at some times may feel that there are some

deficiencies in that system, do we really want to abandon it? There are

stories. There was a story in the Financial Post . Questions

were asked of Robert Johnstone, adviser to the Bank of Canada. "What

about labour's charge that the programme is destroying the collective

bargaining system?" He goes on to deal with that charge. There is

concern in the minds of labour that the real purpose of this programme

is to destroy collective bargaining itself. Do we really want to

destroy collective bargaining, Mr. Speaker? Is that one of the aims of

this legislation? Is it one of the aims of the total programme? I

suspect from time to time, as I listen to the speeches from the other

side of the House, that there are people there who would really like to

destroy the collective bargaining system. Some of them are prepared to

say so; others are prepared to skate around it. But I think they should

give some serious thought to that before they voice opinions in favour

of destroying collective bargaining.

We have won notable advances thr